Overview
Of the 21 state agencies under audit, 3 did not provide the requested state employee settlement agreements, either at all or in a timely manner. When we requested copies of these settlement agreements, 3 agencies (14%) did not provide us with a combined total of 39 (15%) out of the 263 state employee settlement agreements identified during the audit period. The table below details the number of settlement agreements, by agency, not provided to us.
The 39 state employee settlement agreements not provided had a total monetary value of $491,069. These were a mix of settlement payments reportedly paid through a state agency’s own funds and CTR’s Settlement and Judgment fund. See the table below.
Monetary Settlement Agreements Not Provided by Agency—Substantive Testing
| State Agency | Total Settlement Agreements Not Received | Total Dollar Amount of Settlement |
|---|---|---|
| CCCC | 1 | $30,000 |
| MassArt* | 3 | $287,032 |
| RCC | 35 | $174,037 |
| Grand Total | 39 | $491,069 |
* All agencies were made aware of the findings on July 30, 2025. As we were preparing to issue this audit report, MassArt did provide copies of the 3 settlement agreements, on January 14, 2026. While we were not able to incorporate this new information into our finding, because it was not provided in a timely manner, we do believe it is important to acknowledge receipt of the agreements, even though we could not modify our finding.
Agencies’ failure to provide state employee settlement agreements to our office, which has the legal authority to receive and analyze them under state law, creates a reasonable concern that information is being unlawfully withheld. This could negatively affect public trust in government and obscures from view how public dollars are being spent. Since these records were not provided to us, we were unable to test (1) whether these agencies complied with CTR’s reporting requirements and (2) whether the settlement lists provided to us were accurately described. Without sufficient documentation, there is a greater-than-acceptable risk that some or many state employee settlement agreements that should have been reported to CTR were not. CTR would therefore have been unable to ensure proper accounting of these settlement agreements.
Authoritative Guidance
GOV’s Executive Department Settlement Policy established the following requirement regarding record retention:
For any matter that is settled, other than settlements of labor grievances or affirmative litigation, the settling agency shall, subject to the applicable records retention period, maintain a complete file consisting of: (i) the underlying claim or complaint; (ii) the settlement agreement; (iii) any settlement recommendation memoranda and attachments; (d) all documentation submitted or received from the Office of the Comptroller under 815 CMR 5.00 et seq., and the Comptroller’s Settlements and Judgments Policy; (iv) documentation of all required approvals; and (v) documentation of payment of the claim.
Each executive office shall track settlements entered by the office and its agencies, other than settlements of labor grievances and affirmative litigation, including: (i) the claimant’s name; (ii) the date of settlement; (iii) the amount of settlement; (iv) the office or agency at issue; and (v) the type of claim. The tracker maintained by each executive office shall be treated as a public record.
The Massachusetts Statewide Records Retention Schedule requires state agencies to retain records relating to an employee settlement agreement in accordance with the following guidelines:
E05-01: Employee Complaint/Investigation/Disciplinary Records
Retain 6 years after last activity.
Documents informal or formal investigations into alleged employee misconduct. Includes complaints, notes, statements, and determinations and record of actions taken.
E05-02: Employee Grievance/Complaint Records
Permanent
Documents work related complaints from non-union employees and grievances from union employees relating to their job environment. Includes complaints, grievances, hearing notices, arbitration findings, meeting notes, dispositions, and related correspondence. . . .
E05-02 (c): All other records
Retain 6 years final resolution.
E05-03: Personnel Action Records
See sub-schedules for specific retention periods.
Documents individual or class actions relating to reclassifications, promotions, demotions, transfers, layoffs, reductions-in-force, severance agreements, and terminations. Includes justification documentation, working notes, requests, employee notifications and responses, appeals, and related correspondence. . . .
E05-03 (c): All other records
Retain 6 years final resolution.
Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws states:
The department of the state auditor shall audit the accounts, programs, activities and functions directly related to the aforementioned accounts of all departments, offices, commissions, institutions and activities of the commonwealth, including those of districts and authorities created by the general court and including those of the income tax division of the department of revenue and, for such purposes, the authorized officers and employees of the department of the state auditor shall have access to such accounts at reasonable times and the department may require the production of books, documents, vouchers and other records relating to any matter within the scope of an audit conducted under this section or section 13, except tax returns.
Reasons for Issue
Agencies could not provide documented policies detailing the retention of documentation related to state employee settlement agreements. Some agencies explained that agreements associated with certain state employee settlements could not be located. RCC did not provide any additional information when we followed up on missing documentation.
Recommendation
The 3 agencies identified in this finding should develop policies and procedures to ensure that they retain documentation relating to state employee settlement agreements in accordance with the Massachusetts Statewide Records Retention Schedule. These policies and procedures should include the creation of a centralized list of such state employee settlement agreements and the location of the storage of these records to facilitate the production of these records upon request.
Auditee’s Response: CCCC
The settlement was a payment required pursuant to an arbitration award which OSA never requested as it was a judgment not a settlement and thus CCCC did not provide information on judgments in its Audit requests. CCCC did subsequently provide information regarding an arbitration award, which OSA misconstrued as an employee settlement.
Auditor’s Reply: CCCC
We did not misconstrue this as an employee settlement, rather CCCC reported this to CTR as a settlement agreement, and it was paid through the Settlement and Judgment fund. If this is indeed an arbitration award, CCCC should work with CTR to reclassify it as such.
CCCC is included as part of this finding because of the following circumstances: At the beginning of the audit, CCCC provided us with a list of employee settlement agreements executed by CCCC during the audit period. During our audit testing, we requested a copy of a particular settlement agreement (which CCCC included on its original settlement list), totaling $30,000. CCCC did not provide us with a copy of the agreement as requested; therefore, we could not perform our testing on this selection. CCCC indicates in its response that this was an arbitration award; however, the documentation that we have for this selection (which included a “Settlement/Judgment Payment Authorization Form” [see below], email correspondence between CCCC and an assistant attorney general, email correspondence between CCCC staff members, interrogatories for a superior court civil action case, and requests for production of documents for a superior court civil action case) does not support that this was, in fact, an arbitration award. For our post-audit review, which we will be conducting in roughly six months, CCCC is welcome and encouraged to provide any documentation it feels necessary to support its position or to provide clarification regarding this matter.
Auditee’s Response: RCC
OSA’s inclusion of RCC in this finding is factually incorrect. The 34 agreements referenced by OSA were arbitration awards or judgments, not settlement agreements. These awards are governed by collective bargaining agreements and implemented under Comptroller approval. RCC provided supporting documentation, including:
- The Comptroller’s approval of each award
- The Settlements & Judgments (S&J) application forms (with redactions)
- Copies of arbitration decisions and awards
RCC therefore disputes OSA’s characterization of “noncompliance” and/or any missing settlement agreements. All required documents were provided within scope.
Auditor’s Reply: RCC
There are 35 monetary employee settlement agreements for which RCC did not provide us corresponding settlement agreements. OSA disagrees with RCC’s assertion that “34 agreements referenced by OSA were arbitration awards or judgments, not settlement agreements.” They are not. On November 14, 2023, RCC executed a settlement agreement with the Massachusetts Community College Council, a union, settling grievances on behalf of 32 RCC employees under its Day contract. In consideration for the withdrawal of certain grievances, RCC agreed to provide payments to claimants by “continu[ing] to follow the Roxbury College Tufano Arbitration award.” The settlement agreement entered into by RCC provided a resolution that essentially mirrored the payment methodology of a prior arbitration award but was not itself the result of an arbitration. According to available records, it was a settlement. Due to the insufficiency of the information provided to us (RCC’s “Settlement/Judgment Payment Authorization Form” indicated that the payments were related to a settlement for multiple claimants but did not include a schedule of those claimants), OSA could not determine which individuals were paid, how much they were paid, and when they were paid. We followed up with RCC on April 9, 2025 and April 22, 2025 asking for details and documentation regarding the records for these payments that RCC designated as modality payments in its settlement list. On May 22, 2025, RCC indicated that it did not have the requested documentation.
Additionally, RCC did not provide the employee settlement agreement for a September 7, 2024 agreement for $10,500. Finally, within CTR’s Settlements and Judgments Access data, we identified 2 employee settlement agreements that RCC did not include in the self-reported list that it provided to OSA. RCC has still not provided copies of these employee settlement agreements to OSA. In roughly six months, we will be conducting our post-audit review, and RCC is welcomed and encouraged to submit any documentation it feels may clarify this issue.
| Date published: | January 21, 2026 |
|---|